get_meal

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the retrieval key context (server-generated id) and implies single-record behavior, which is useful, but doesn't describe return format or the include_deleted behavior beyond what the params show. With strong annotations, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Zero wasted words, perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema (which covers return values), strong annotations covering safety, and a simple fetch-by-id operation, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is the unexplained include_deleted parameter, which could benefit from clarification about its semantics (e.g., whether deleted meals are normally excluded and what happens when true).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and with 2 parameters, the description carries meaningful burdens. However, the description only covers meal_id (referenced as 'server-generated id'), which clarifies that meal_id isn't user-chosen. The include_deleted parameter is entirely unexplained — no description of what it does. This is incomplete coverage of the parameter space.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get one meal by its server-generated id' uses a specific verb (get) plus resource (meal) and identifies the retrieval key (server-generated id). It's clear in what it does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_meals or get_meal_history, relying on the 'one meal by id' scope which adequately separates it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage — retrieve a single meal by its id — but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like list_meals (for multiple meals) or get_meal_history. The 'server-generated id' phrasing hints at prerequisite knowledge (need an id) but doesn't state it as a requirement or contrast with alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.